DL's 'Man Behind the Curtain'

[themur]

Disney isn't the only company to experience "brand worship." Is everything that Google does perfect? Probably not but there are people I know who operate on the theory that everything Google does it does best. We also love to root for successful businesses and then tear them down for being successful.

I go to DL because I feel that I get a very good value for my money spent. I have a very fond place in my hear for DL so I probably forgive missteps easier. Every time I bust out the cash for an expensive water of ice cream, I am clearly aware DL is a business. As an adult I find this business facinating.

I loved the park as a kid because it was fun and exciting and a place that my parents allowed me some freedom. I like it now because I appreciate the art and architecture; the little details that they don't have to tend to but do! When I was a kid it was all about maximizing rides (and talking my parents out of their E tickets.) Today I enjoy time with my friends and best of all with my children and nieces and nephews who are experiencing the park in a way I can't anymore.

All of that is Magic. It doesn't exist at parks like Great America or Six Flags Discovery Kingdom near me in Nor Cal.

[monotonehell]

...All of that is Magic. It doesn't exist at parks like Great America or Six Flags Discovery Kingdom near me in Nor Cal.

Or (for me at least) Florida's Magic Kingdom. It just feels like I'm at Six Flags over there whereas Disneyland has that special something.

[fo'c's'le swab]

I understand the point Swab is making I think. I agree that in keeping that "child like" nievety (sp?) in our attitudes about the park it helps make us (props to Steve G) Frogs in a pond that is getting warmer and warmer.

It is very hard though. The resort itself was built on legend and theme "magic" and many of us literally grew up visiting the place regularly. To cast away the rosey lenses and see the machine behind the magic and the business behind the playtime is not only difficult, it is a permanent step. Once you have done it, you don't get to go back and see it like you did before. That fact (I opinionate) makes some cling desperately (even in adulthood) to the enthroned and gilded Walt persona and his temple like creation.

Ultimately I agree that it is a bad thing and possibly one of the very things that will tear down the temple walls so to speak. The more easily the "poor ideas" and theme destruction are accepted (due to this D can do no wrong attitude) the more of the old real creativity is chipped away, perhaps for ever.

Good post, GD. It is hard to surrender the fantasy, but as theMur points out, seeing a more realistic DL and Walt can be just as fascinating:

Disney isn't the only company to experience "brand worship." Is everything that Google does perfect? Probably not but there are people I know who operate on the theory that everything Google does it does best. We also love to root for successful businesses and then tear them down for being successful.

I go to DL because I feel that I get a very good value for my money spent. I have a very fond place in my hear for DL so I probably forgive missteps easier. Every time I bust out the cash for an expensive water of ice cream, I am clearly aware DL is a business. As an adult I find this business facinating.

I loved the park as a kid because it was fun and exciting and a place that my parents allowed me some freedom. I like it now because I appreciate the art and architecture; the little details that they don't have to tend to but do! When I was a kid it was all about maximizing rides (and talking my parents out of their E tickets.) Today I enjoy time with my friends and best of all with my children and nieces and nephews who are experiencing the park in a way I can't anymore.

All of that is Magic. It doesn't exist at parks like Great America or Six Flags Discovery Kingdom near me in Nor Cal.

Great observation, and mirrors my own feelings in the matter. I find DL and Walt doubly fascinating when exploring 'behind the curtain', and seeing them as less than sacrosanct.

[mousechild]

As to the money comment... I just can't picture Walt saying publicly "We built Disneyland to suck a crapload of money out of the average Joe's wallet" even if that is what it has done since 1955!

But you can just see the outtake, can't you?

"No I can't say that, burn that take and I will start from the top."


BTW I am happy to give my money at the park. I have a lot of fun and come away happy, if a bit light in the wallet.

[Junthor]

You're not alone, but is this asking for disappointment ultimately? How does this affect your objective opinion of your own satisfaction with DL? Is it even truly possible to be objective when one only chooses to see 'half' the picture?

I think it depends on how Well Disney(land) does their job. Thankfully they do their job VERY well And most people can blissfully immerse themselves and only wake up when it's time to pull out the wallet.

I find this to be the case with me as well. But when discussing Walt Disney's life, do we have the rose-colored glasses surgically grafted to our little skulls, or are we able to remove them as Disney fans, for glimpses of the nuts and bolts and hard truths that are in equal proportions to 'Disney Magic'?

I think most people who hang out as Message boards like this are able to take the glasses off . We know (ideally) that Walt was not Perfect. I think we would rather have the truth instead of a fairy tale.

[mousechild]

I think most people who hang out as Message boards like this are able to take the glasses off . We know (ideally) that Walt was not Perfect. I think we would rather have the truth instead of a fairy tale.

I think you have missed some of the threads I have seen on this board.

[mousechild]

Double post

[DisneyIPresume]

I was just thinking this morning, while driving to work, "Why is it that people devote pages of discussion to whether or not the Submarines are real? If the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage was a ride at Knott's or Magic Mountain would people devote such extensive discussion to it?" And other things too -- such as whether or not the Dream Suite is tacky. And multiple threads and pages devoted to the appropriateness of Fantasmic! The list goes on and on...

Walt has been dead for almost 42 years. The man is not of this world anymore. Yet his legacy survives. This legacy endures because us die-hard fans insist on nurturing it, because it is Walt's imagination and what sprung forth from it which has made Disneyland different than any other park on the planet.

I know it sounds like I am idolizing Walt Disney, but I do admit there definitely were men behind the curtain back in his day. The only difference is that in Walt's day they were not as greedy as the executives who are currently behind the curtain today. Sure, they wanted to make money but not at the expense of destroying Walt's legacy.

[Junthor]

I think you have missed some of the threads I have seen on this board.

Yeah.. thats an issue....

Because I HAVE seen some of the threads lol

[mousechild]

I know it sounds like I am idolizing Walt Disney, but I do admit there definitely were men behind the curtain back in his day. The only difference is that in Walt's day they were not as greedy as the executives who are currently behind the curtain today. Sure, they wanted to make money but not at the expense of destroying Walt's legacy.

No is saying (yet) that Walt was an ogre that beat the help while rifling his secretary's wallet for cigarette money.

And we are discussing Walt the man, not Walt the legacy. By making Walt into more than he is and hiding the human Walt we are robbing ourselves to learning from him. If we allow Walt to be thought of as more than human we create an atmosphere where what Walt did becomes impossible to replicate because Walt is more than human.

[Goofy Daddy]

No is saying (yet) that Walt was an ogre that beat the help while rifling his secretary's wallet for cigarette money.

And we are discussing Walt the man, not Walt the legacy. By making Walt into more than he is and hiding the human Walt we are robbing ourselves to learning from him. If we allow Walt to be thought of as more than human we create an atmosphere where what Walt did becomes impossible to replicate because Walt is more than human.

I agree. Walt as a deified company figurehead is far less interesting than the Walt I have read about in various biographies. The human Walt, the one who made mistakes and did thing by trial error is really only known to those who knew him or who now take the time to really research him. That is a minority of people and even of Disney fans. The majority of people and "more casual" Disney fans only know Walt as the great creator and the kindly fatherly/grandfatherly guy who would introduce his show once a week on TV.

[DisneyIPresume]

No is saying (yet) that Walt was an ogre that beat the help while rifling his secretary's wallet for cigarette money.

And we are discussing Walt the man, not Walt the legacy. By making Walt into more than he is and hiding the human Walt we are robbing ourselves to learning from him. If we allow Walt to be thought of as more than human we create an atmosphere where what Walt did becomes impossible to replicate because Walt is more than human.

I agree. Walt as a deified company figurehead is far less interesting than the Walt I have read about in various biographies. The human Walt, the one who made mistakes and did thing by trial error is really only known to those who knew him or who now take the time to really research him. That is a minority of people and even of Disney fans. The majority of people and "more casual" Disney fans only know Walt as the great creator and the kindly fatherly/grandfatherly guy who would introduce his show once a week on TV.

I agree. Not trying to counter any arguments. But remember that Walt is now a legacy. He is no longer alive and the only thing that exists is his creation. I agree that we must study Walt the man in order to preserve what is left of his creation, or to create new attractions in order to prevent this legacy from dying.

[fo'c's'le swab]

By diminishing the supreme reverence for Walt Disney and his authority over his creation, some would argue that this leaves the door open for the destruction of beloved WD attractions in the Park--that these places (like the Tiki Room, IASW, Storybookland, the Opera House, and Main Street Cinema, among others) are dependent upon Walt's deified status in order to save them from the chopping block.

I disagree with this. They are viable attractions because people still like them and attend (no mattter what the particular motivation).

As fans, I believe we should see the man, and see his ideals and judge them both on their individual merit, not confusing the two. His framework for the theming of individual Lands should be used as a rigid standard today because they are creatively superior, not because they simply came from Walt Disney.

[DisneyIPresume]

Walt had his limitations for sure. But Swab I think you might be minimizing the incredible creativity that flowed naturally from this individual.

I experienced quite an epiphany when I visted Walt's Barn a couple of months ago. I was able to see the model trains that he created with his own hands. I could see the incredible detail that he put into each train that most people would ignore due to it being too costly, difficult, or time consuming.

So when building Disneyland, Walt didn't put too much effort into it because the detailed theming we experience today flowed naturally from him. And his persona was larger than life and therfore talented artists flocked to him.

Sure, Walt wasn't perfect but he certainly wasn't ordinary.

My apologies for saying this, but take Walter Knott for example. In many ways he was a creative genious just like Walt Disney was. But his company never made him out to be a larger than life figure, so while he created wonderful rides and attractions they never were at the level of Disney's. And now that their family has sold to Cedar Fair this new company apparently chooses not to acknowledge Walter Knott at all -- and now Knotts is being turned into a second rate Magic Mountain.

[fo'c's'le swab]

Walt had his limitations for sure. But Swab I think you might be minimizing the incredible creativity that flowed naturally from this individual.

I am attempting to simply bring him back down (even temporarily) to mortal status, not minimize his contributions. That being said, Walt's sole creative genius would have given us a Pirate Wax Museum walk-thru instead of the POTC masterpiece, so he didn't always fire on all creative cylinders, as it were.

My apologies for saying this, but take Walter Knott for example. In many ways he was a creative genious just like Walt Disney was. But his company never made him out to be a larger than life figure, so while he created wonderful rides and attractions they never were at the level of Disney's.

My personal connection to Walter Knott, and affinity for him does create a bias here; but these are my semi-objective opinions on this statement: Walt's 'company' did not make him out to be a larger than life figure--Walt did that on his own, and it was a brilliantly orchestrated move, and strategy. Walter Knott, I know from experience was not this type of individual. I would further argue that the Walter Knott-run Park was JUST as enjoyable and creative (though maybe not as popular due to having no recognizable cartoon characters to use as a foundation/crutch) as Walt's Disneyland before his death.

And now that their family has sold to Cedar Fair this new company apparently chooses not to acknowledge Walter Knott at all -- and now Knotts is being turned into a second rate Magic Mountain

Agreed. Would a 'second-rate Magic Mountain' be an redundancy?